On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 09:33 -0400, Andres Cimmarusti wrote: > >> AFAICS kernel 3.2 is not considered as a LTS Kernel, see > >> http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable-status-01-2012.html. > >> But Ubuntu 12.04 LTS relies on it. > >> > >> I wonder what is Debian's plan for the Squeeze backports > >> repository in case? > > > > Linux 3.2 will be used in wheezy, so there will never be any later > > upstream versions in squeeze-backports. > > I've always wondered why Debian doesn't pick up Longterm support > kernels for their stable releases, as soon as they mature. I assume > this has been discussed. Let me point out our current example: > > Squeeze released with LTS kernel 2.6.32 (first time this has ever > happened). Wouldn't it be beneficial for Debian to include the new LTS > kernel (3.0) in a point release (recommended for HW compatibility, but > not forced) for Squeeze ? No, new hardware support generally has to be available in the installer. Therefore we have the options to: 1. Backport new hardware support 2. Update the default kernel (like SLE does now) 3. Offer 2 different kernel versions in the installer (further complicating CD mastering and installation guides) > I know we have backports, but the strict policy of backports only > allows packages present in testing. This means we get kernel 3.2, > which can be unreliable until it truly matures. > > I realize this idea implies more work for an already reduced number of > people, but since it's an LTS kernel, like 2.6.32, shouldn't that make > it a little easier? Not really. No-one is stopping you from installing 3.0.y. 'make deb-pkg' works pretty well. Ben. > also having a newer kernel would mean less backporting. > > But I guess this is not really a discussion for debian-backports > > Andres > -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part